About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
understand if he is indeed conscious and does survive before reading him miranda rights; is that correct? >> i believe molly line will be talking about that a little bit as well. there is a loophole. there is a way they don't have to. so he was not read his miranda rights to allow to ask questions of him. we don't know if questions have been asked. they may have asked questions of him when he was under the situation he was in, of course being pretty seriously injured. they do believe he is going to make it. that was something, not only important for them to do that because that is what we do in this society but important because of this investigation. last night we were told he was being brought here for treatment. we weren't too far behind the ambulance. as you made your way through boston, you could see many of the businesses reopened. you saw restaurants and bars reopened. at one point there was a small college and 500 students had gone into the streets and blocked off all four lanes cheering, holding signs and as first responders and medical teams came through that had nothing to do
condition. a lot of talk about miranda. michael you prosecuted richard reid the shoe bomber in federal court. how unusual is it to not read miranda warnings? >> case specific. if there is an imminent public safe itty concern they should exercise the miranda exception under public safety and try to get as much information as they possibly can in order to protect the public. i think it is perfectly legitimate under these circumstances. >> judge jeanine: jay, to you when we talk about the public safety exception here. how long is that exception good for are? how long can they go without reading him his rights? >> there is no definitive statement but most people believe it is 48 hours. you a situation here where the distort accused is not conscious are in to even speak so 48 hours. points to a fundamental problem with thinking about mir randiesing. do we want a prosecution or an investigation to determine how deep the terrorist links might be and whether there were additional plans for terror activity. an awful load of weapons that the two possessed. the situation with the travel to russia. all
enforcement. we know that doesn't quite work for several reasons. one, there is an exception in the miranda rights. when a suspect is read their rights by the police, we're talking about a miranda warning. there is a provision that allows in case law that allows for law enforcement to wait if they think there is a national security threat or a danger to the public until they've talked to the person and established there isn't a danger to the public or gotten the information they need. then they can read the miranda rights. that's what the fbi has done in this case. that's what they did in the new york time square bomber. that worked quite well. they talk to him for a while before they read him his rights. then they read him his rights. he kept and he provided very valuable information. we know that the traditional civilian court system founded by the founding fathers can work in this situation. >> let me ask you a couple questions. if the russian government was so concerned about tamerlan as to alert our fbi and our government, and warrant an investigation of him, why are we so sure that dz
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
now, should dzhokhar tsarnaev be treated as a criminal, or treated under the miranda rule and read his rights and given a lawyer or treated as enmyth combatant with no such protections? >> i believe strongly the former. that is the only legal way to proceed. i do not believe under the military commission law that she is eligible for that. it would be unconstitutional to do that. one of the great things in america we come together at times of trial. i very much regret the fact that there are those that want to precipitate debate whether he's enemy combatant or whether he is a terrorist, murder, et cetera. federal law, we have had 435 terrorist convictions. under federal law. we had 100-plus arrests. maybe half a dozen under the military commission. this is clear to me that the course that can be taken, the high value interrogation group. they are skilled and they know how to do this. the miranda right can be read at a later time. he has reportedly been shot through the throat, he is incubated and he can't talk now. there is time to do the investigation, to make a clear assessment and mo
of public safety exception before you give him his miranda rights, all that talk of naming him as an enemy combatant, all of that is moot right now. they've gone forward with the official proceedings. >> well, they may have used the public safety exception, and apparently they were using it to question him, and he responded in some way given his medical condition. but certainly now that he has a lawyer, that period, however long it was, is over. and you're right, the enemy combatant thing was a nonstarter from the never going to happen. this is a criminal case in federal court in massachusetts, and that's where it will stay until it's resolved one way or another. >> it's going to take a while. thanks very much, jeffrey. much more on what's going on in this boston investigation coming up here in "the situation room" 0. >>> also, another terror plot released today, new information. canadian authorities announcing the arrest of two men believed to be part of a terror plot to attack a passenger train that may have been heading towards the united states, the plot said to have an alleged connect
miranda rights and a lawyer. but we have the right under our law -- i've been a military lawyer for 30 years, to gather intelligence from enemy combatants. and a citizen can be an enemy combatant. he is not eligible for military commission trial. i wrote the military commission in 2009. he cannot go to military commission. >> so a civil trial no matter what. right. >> in my view a civil trial, it should be a federal trial. >> right. and senator schumer, i know you agree this should go to a federal court. i want to quick read you something that one of your colleagues said. this is from senator carl levin, the chairman of the armed services committee. and in response to senator graham and others saying this man needs to be treated as a terrorist, this is what senator levin said. i am not aware of any evidence so far that the boston suspect is part of any organized group let alone al qaeda, the taliban or within of their affiliates. to hold the suspect as an enemy combatant under these circumstances would be contrary to our laws and may even jeopardize our efforts to prosecute him for his
yesterday applauding the suspension of miranda rights for the teenage suspect. he even suggested we haven't gone far enough. and advocated for labeling the suspect an enemy combatant. by defining this week's events as terrorism, we endow the violence with political meaning. when we call their homemade bombs but not adam lanza's bush master xm 15 rifle weapons of mass destruction, we sent out a trajectory for the prosecution when we focus on months that one suspect spent overseas rather than the years that both spent in the u.s. we assume a limited geography for the incubation of evil. so here we go. the crisis is over and the politics begin. folks, this is actually the most dangerous part. with me at the table today is msnbc contributor and georgetown university professor, michael eric dyson. valerie core, a writer and fi filmmak filmmaker. co-host of the cycle and robert pape, director of the project security and -- >> bb, let me start with you. what do you think happened this week? >> what i think happened is we had homegrown terrorism come to the united states. since 9/11, this is the
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8